Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap65845 (2018.09)

Early High Court Decision 2017Du61 (2017.03.09)

tax invoices received from data shall constitute a false tax invoice;

(As in the first instance judgment, tax invoices received from data constitute false tax invoices, and cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of due care as a good manager.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu61637 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Gu○○ and 2

○ Head of tax office et al.

Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap65845 (2018.09)

November 16, 2018

201.02.08

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the head of the defendant's OO shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' appeals against Defendant OO director and all appeals against Defendant YCC director are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation cost between the plaintiffs and the head of defendant OO tax office, 4/5 shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the head of defendant OO tax office, and the appeal cost between the plaintiffs and the head of defendant OO tax office shall be borne by the plaintiff OCC.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of each value-added tax (including additional tax) set out in the separate list Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs by the head of the defendant's OOO tax office, and the imposition of each global income tax (value-added tax) set out in the separate list Nos. 3 and 4 against the plaintiff's GuCC by the head of the defendant OOO tax office against the plaintiff's GuA and GuB is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following part of the order for revocation is revoked. The imposition of KRW 00,000,000 among the imposition disposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) in the attached list Nos. 1, 201 against the plaintiffs by Defendant OO head of the tax office shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 00,000,000 among the imposition disposition of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax) in the attached list Nos. 2, 2012, and the imposition of KRW 1,00,000 (including additional tax) in the same list Nos. 3 and 4 of the same list against the Plaintiff, by Defendant OO head of the tax office against the Plaintiff A and GuB, shall be revoked.

(b) Defendant OO head of the tax office;

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant OO chief of the tax office shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant O chief of the tax office shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is as follows: "The disposition of this case" is deleted from No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the degree of gambling is excluded from the parallel), and "the disposition of this case" in No. 4 of the disposition of this case is as stated in No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the alteration of "the disposition of this case" in No. 1 of the disposition of this case to "the value-added tax of this case", and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8

2. Ex officio determination

We examine the plaintiffs' arguments ex officio prior to the judgment.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).

However, in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance court after the date of closing the argument in the trial, the director of the tax office of defendant OO decided to correct and reduce the unfair under-reported additional tax from the disposition of this case as a general under-reported additional tax. The part exceeding 00,000,000 won from the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax of 2,00,000,000 (including the additional tax) listed in the attached Table 1 attached to the list 2, 2011 against the plaintiffs, and the part exceeding 00,000,000 won from the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax of 1,20,000,000 (including the additional tax) listed in the attached list 2, 200,000 won from the disposition of the first instance court (hereinafter all the part against the first instance court of defendantO tax office of this case on the ground that the remaining part after ex officio revocation of the disposition of this case and all of the global income tax disposition of this case were extinguished.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) The court's explanation concerning this part shall include: (1) the deletion of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 5 pages 19 to 6 pages 1; (2) the omission of the necessary disposition of the tax amount by 11 page 2; (3) the omission of the disposition of the additional tax by 1520 on December 19, 2017; (4) the omission of the additional tax by 13 business years and 13, 14, 15 parallel 4 from 19 to 2; (6) the omission of the disposition of the additional tax by 16,00 to 9, the omission of the disposition of the additional tax by 16,00 to 19, the omission of the additional tax by 16,000 to 20, the omission of the disposition of the additional tax by 16,000 won; (6) the omission of the additional tax by 16,000 won to 17,000,000 won.

Unpaid tax amount or shortage 】 Period from the day following the due date to the date of voluntary payment or the date of notice of tax payment 】 The interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the interest rate, etc. applied by financial companies, etc. to overdue loans 】 and the “before amendment by Act No. 1520, Dec. 19, 2017” in Chapter 9 is the same as the statement in paragraph (2) in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case before amendment by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016”. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' actions against the defendant OO director's losing part of the judgment of the court of first instance are dismissed. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant OO director's chief of the tax office are all dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff OO chief of the tax office's claims against the defendant OO chief of the tax office are all dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant O chief of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant O chief of the tax office is revoked, and the plaintiffs' actions against the defendant O chief of the tax office and the appeal against the plaintiff O chief of the tax office of the Gu